Supporting AA doesn't mean that you think all people of the same ethnic group think alike.... However, the groups to which you belong DO affect how you see the world, and probably how you will interpret the law, which is why law schools like to have a variety of types of people.

So in other words, all people of the same ethnic group do think alike.

Quote

And anyway, it's not like anyone's making these law schools admit vertain types of people. They WANT to do it. Law schools are self-interested, and if they didn't think they'd benefit in some way from racial/cultural/religious/socioeconomic diversity, believe me, they wouldn't do it.

It doesn't matter what public schools want to do. Private law schools can engage in racial discrimination all they please. But when public law schools engage in racial discrimination, their actions represent possible 14th Amendment right violations and require scrict scrutiny to determine constitutionality.

Then I suppose my rational for supporting AA is illegal because I do not believe all white people think a like..(Man where does this guy get this stuff from) Good lord.

That is correct. If you support Affirmative Action for reasons other than intellectual diversity determined by the proxy of racial diversity, then you support Affirmative Actions for illegal reasons. I "get this stuff" from basic logic and a familiarity with the Supreme Court's decision in Bakke and Grutter.

Quote

Wait...perhaps I'm missing your point. If I did support the legal rational for A.A, why do you automatically assume that I believe all white people think the same? That's ridiculous.

Because that follows from the only legal rationale for Affirmative Action. Read the Supreme Court decisions if you don't believe me. And I agree: it is ridiculous.

No. I will indeed tell you what you believe in, based on your previous statements. If you support Affirmative Action under the only legal rationale, then you must believe that all people with white skin think alike and all people with black skin think alike. We know that you support Affirmative Action. I don't recall your rationale for supporting it, so it is possible that you support it based on an illegal rationale.

Quote

Several people on LSD don't want diversity and try to manipulate the topic into an A.A. debate.

Huh?

Quote

I ACCEPT that fact that there are individuals there who don't think I deserve to be in law school.

You deserve to be in law school based on your intellectual merits. You do not deserve to be in law school based on your skin color. If I recall correctly, your LSAT and GPA are very high, so why would anyone here think that you don't deserve to be in law school?

You might want to go to LSAC's website. As far as racial diversity, 1-5% minority at a law school.....

For this thread I was speaking of political (liberal/conservative, republican/democrat), religious, personal experiences, Rural/urban, etc.

If this is what you meant by diversity in your title post, then here is why I am "scared" of diversity.

Suppose law schools decide to give preferences to those with diverse political and religious viewpoints. Future applicants to law school would now have an incentive to adopt political and religious beliefs (or at least pretend to adopt these beliefs) that they would not have adopted otherwise. Those with political and religious beliefs that are already well represented in law school would be at a disadvantage -- not because they would make bad lawyers, or because they would have less chance of succeeding at law school - but because they are unfortunate enough to believe in a God or a political ideology that many people already share.

Were law schools to actively pursue these goals, we would see a huge increase in the number of applicants who claim to be Scientologists, national socialists, Moonies, communists, athiests, anarchists, Santerians, white nationalists, Branch Davidians, Black Panthers, Christian Scientists, Michigan Militia members, Satanists, Pagans, Wiccans...

Are people who are willing to adopt or pretend to adopt minority viewpoints more qualified or more deserving of entry into law school than those who honestly hold majority or over-represented viewpoints?

I say this as an athiest anarchist who would surely benefit from the proposed policy.

Diversity is a good trait to have at a school because it brings a variety of perspectives and enriches the student body experience. Based on my experience, I found that homogeneous schools have a tendency to produce close-minded individuals. Diversity challenges individuals to go outside of their comfort zones and have new experiences. Some people fear diversity because they believe that they might lose their individuality as a result of being part of a melting pot. However, I think the exact opposite occurs. Diversity gives individuals an opportunity to shine and bring forth their own unique characteristics.

In other words, all people with white skin think alike and all people with black skin think alike.

Right?

WOW…Where in my post did I say that? Did I miss something?

You have stated elsewhere that you support Affirmative Action. The only legal rational for Affirmative Action, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, is diversity. And by diversity, they mean not diversity of skin color alone, but diversity of skin color as a proxy for diversity of thought.

So do you believe diversity of skin color is a good proxy for diversity of thought? Do you believe that all (or most) people with white skin think alike and all (or most) people with black skin think alike? If you support Affirmative Action under the only legal rational, then, yes, you do believe these things.

Diversity is a good trait to have at a school because it brings a variety of perspectives and enriches the student body experience. Based on my experience, I found that homogeneous schools have a tendency to produce close-minded individuals. Diversity challenges individuals to go outside of their comfort zones and have new experiences. Some people fear diversity because they believe that they might lose their individuality as a result of being part of a melting pot. However, I think the exact opposite occurs. Diversity gives individuals an opportunity to shine and bring forth their own unique characteristics.

In other words, all people with white skin think alike and all people with black skin think alike.

The reason that this is not admitted is because it cannot be proven. Discrimination would be if a person was rejected on the basis of their race. Just because one person is admitted on the basis of race does not mean another person is discriminated based on race. I've never heard of a person being rejected based on race...and I've never seen it proven that if minority applicant A did not get in, then white male B would get in? Could it be that the remaining white applicants with great numbers that were passed over eliminated themselves through some mistake: a conviction, bad personal statement, no work history, ect?For future lawyers, a lot of your conceptions of qualifications are overly simplistic.

Prove your case, please.

John Galt

Jennifer Gratz proved her case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. She won.

My only beef with AA is that some African Americans who come from comfortable backgrounds may be benefitted just because they're African Americans, while some White Americans may not be just because they're white. Otherwise I think it's ok.

dude, you don't get it. Even blacks from comfortable backgrounds should get AA because blacks as a whole do not score as well on the LSAT regardless of how comfortable their backgrounds are. Even blacks from very wealthy families whose parents have graduate degrees do not score as well on standardized tests as whites and asians do. So we need race-based AA in order to make sure we have some blacks in the good law schools.

Lobe, what are your thoughts on Rick Sander's argument (the author of the article that's been floating around lately) that "racial preferences [in the law school admissions process] tend to systematically lower black performance in law school, black graduation rates, and black rates of success on the bar exam"?

Sander has been guest posting at the Volokh Conspiracy, one of the top law-oriented blogs, for the past week or two, discussing his recent research on the detrimental effects of Affirmative Action for black law students and lawyers. You can read his posts here.

So do you think the benefits of having more blacks in first tier law schools outweighs the costs of having fewer successful black lawyers?